Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 28, 2023
Table of Contents
- Opening of the SCO National Peoples’ Diplomacy Centre
- Briefing by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on current international issues
- Ukraine crisis
- EU’s new financial instrument for Ukraine
- Opinion by the Council of Europe Venice Commission regarding the Ukrainian law on national minorities
- French President Emmanuel Macron’s interview with France 24 and FranceInfo
- Lithuania’s new repressive moves
- The response of official Tokyo to the new name for Russian military glory day
- Yet another case of discrimination against Russian athletes
- The 55th anniversary of opening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons for signing
- Resuming scheduled air transport to Cuba
- Preparing for the Forum of Campaigners against Modern Practices of Neocolonialism
- Russia’s assessment of the June 19-23, 2023, PACE session in Strasbourg
- Anti-Russia policy of the Moldovan authorities
- Situation with Natalia Burlinova
- Russia’s land plot in West Jerusalem
- The political situation in the Unites States
- Support for Russia during the recent attempted mutiny
- Russia-Armenia railway service
- Day of Victory over Militaristic Japan and the end of World War II
- Activities by Russian military instructors in the CAR and Mali
- Prospects for launching Russia-Ukraine negotiations
- Attempts by the United States to recruit Russian diplomats
- Situation with frozen Russian assets
- Nagorno-Karabakh settlement update
- Russia’s role in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process
- Russia-Armenia military-technical cooperation
- NATO expanding its presence in South Caucasus
- Russia-Belarus relations
- Statements by US Department of State representatives
- The consolidation of Russian society in time of crisis
- Statements by Alexander Dugin
- Investigation into the attempted mutiny in Russia
- Syria settlement update
- Belarusian President’s peacemaking role
- Alexander Lukashenko’s involvement in settling the recent attempted mutiny
- Russia’s actions to strengthen its relations with African countries
- Activities of Russia’s military instructors in Africa
- Western media reports
- Statements by representatives of the Kiev regime
- Visit by the Pope’s envoy to Russia
- Statements by the Foreign Minister of Israel
- Possible foreign footprint in the recent attempt to stage an armed mutiny
- Russian language ban in Latvia
- Assessment of the recent developments in Russia
- Russia’s information sovereignty
- Events for compatriots
- Peaceful settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan
- Lachin Corridor update
Opening of the SCO National Peoples’ Diplomacy Centre
On June 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend in Moscow the opening of the SCO National Peoples’ Diplomacy Centre in Russia, created at the initiative of the Eurasian Peoples’ Assembly. The diplomatic corps of SCO member states, observers and dialogue partners have been invited to attend.
The Centre is designed to help implement Russia’s foreign policy aimed at strengthening the SCO, as well as to promote friendship and shared respect for cultural and civilisational diversity among the nations united on the SCO platform.
In its practical activity, the Centre will establish horizontal ties with identical organisations operating in China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
Briefing by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on current international issues
At 11 am (approx.) on June 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will conduct a briefing on a broad range of issues, including developments in Ukraine, the humanitarian dimension of the Ukraine crisis, the current international agenda, and more.
The relevant announcement will be posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website and its social media accounts.
The Kiev regime’s neo-Nazis and the foreign mercenaries fighting on their side continue to commit mass war crimes against civilians and military personnel. Their cruelty has reached an unprecedented scale. Many criminals believe that their atrocities will remain unpunished, but justice will be delivered to those who are guilty of violence, abuses and murder, including in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In late May 2023, the Supreme Court of the Donetsk People’s Republic sentenced a fighter of the Nazi Azov Battalion to life imprisonment for executing a Russian prisoner of war in Mariupol on April 15, 2022.
On June 26, 2023, the Supreme Court of the Lugansk People’s Republic handed down a 15-year sentence to a flamethrower operator of the Ukrainian air assault brigade for shooting at a bus with civilians who were being evacuated from the war zone in Rubezhnoye on April 2, 2022.
Russian law enforcement agencies will continue to scrupulously collect evidence to expose criminals and call them to account.
Horrible proof of torture, violence and murders committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis and the personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2014-2023 is provided in the book titled The Black Book: Atrocities by Present-Day Banderites, 2014-2023. It was published by the Russian Military Historical Society jointly with the Defence Ministry and the Democracy Research Foundation chaired by Maxim Grigoryev, a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation. It includes evidence by victims and witnesses, investigation materials and photographs. This book is a follow-up on the publication by the Russian Military Historical Society, The Black Book: Atrocities by Banderites, about the Banderites’ crimes committed during and after the Great Patriotic War. It will be published in several foreign languages soon. We believe that the information provided in it will be useful, especially for those who refuse to see Nazism in Ukraine or a connection between the present-day Banderites and their ideological idols of the 1940s.
The criminal nature of the Kiev regime has been confirmed by Deputy Head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate Vadim Skibitsky, who told the German media about the so-called “elimination lists.” They plan to kill not only Russian politicians and military leaders who top the list, but also public figures, journalists, bloggers and patriots. According to Skibitsky, “the elimination of enemy propagandists is justified in wartime conditions.” He also mentioned plans of terrorist attacks on infrastructure facilities in Crimea.
We are not only shocked by the Kiev regime’s openly terrorist methods but also by its maniacal striving to kill civilians, journalists and public figures. Do you remember their languid reaction to the murders of Darya Dugina and Vladlen Tatarsky and to the assassination attempt on Zakhar Prilepin? They neither refuted nor confirmed their involvement. They just smiled and said cryptically that they didn’t do it, but they know what’s what. Today, they say openly that they are planning and committing such crimes and will continue to do so. What does this point to? It is more than mere cynicism; it is evidence of their extremist and terrorist essence.
It is shocking that they have been supported by the “sophisticated” Western societies, which claim to be tolerant and to be upholding human rights. Does tolerance include peaceful coexistence with terrorists? If so, it is a completely new interpretation. The above information has been published in the German media. Did they include any references to German legislation or Germany’s international commitments? Did they mention that such methods are illegal and are not endorsed in Germany, or that the German state and society distance themselves from such statements? No, they didn’t. Why? The reason is that they are financing these crimes. They are not financing what they describe as the Kiev regime’s “justified struggle” for the country and the people, but the murder of our citizens, Russians and people of other ethnicities, whom they don’t regard as part of their ideological, civilisational or political world. We remember the statements made by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, about Europe as a “garden” and the rest of the world as the “jungle” where they have a right to restore order by financing the Kiev regime to help it kill as many Russians as possible. These calls have been made by US Senator Lindsey Graham and former US President George W. Bush.
How could the democratic German media publish this? Did they give the floor to representatives of ISIS [designated as a terrorist organisation]? Did they interview the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Germany in the past few years? Did they publish statements by those who were implicated in the murder of EU citizens in other EU countries? No, nobody considered it possible before to publish statements by such people about the assassination of public figures.
But what about solidarity among journalists? The Kiev regime has been quite blunt when declaring that it planned to kill media professionals. What do the German journalists who published this interview think about it? Or is this yet another case of our journalists being somehow different from theirs? Maybe the German media should think about creating a permanent section on their websites for terrorists of all kinds, including ISIS, al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra? On the other hand, they were the ones who divided the terrorists into good and not-so-good terrorists, singling out those with whom they could strike deals. If so, there would be nothing shameful about creating a separate section for offering a platform to extremist organisations of all kinds to share their plans and use various circumstances to justify their actions. As for us, reading these articles will raise awareness among us about the terrible nexus between extremism and the Western community.
By seeking to justify its savage nature, the Kiev regime persists in its attempts to stage a counteroffensive, a senseless and suicidal undertaking. The Ukrainian Armed Forces have already lost tens of thousands of people. However, just the other day, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said that the United States accounted for losses of this magnitude when planning military action on Ukrainian and Russian territory. After all, these are Ukrainian nationals, not US citizens. In terms of the Western “garden vs jungle” metaphor, this was their immediate purpose – to be slaughtered. In other words, the effort to exterminate Ukrainians and Russians is advancing strictly in keeping with the plan devised by the United States well in advance.
Moreover, the West seems to have failed to draw any conclusions from the failed attempt by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to stage a counteroffensive, thinking that they can still turn the tide in their favour by continuing to supply Ukraine with even more weapons. Everyone saw what the mobilisation effort over there looks like. Everyone can see that people are being pulled out of their homes and separated from their families, rounded up, beaten and kidnapped just to fill the ranks of cannon fodder.
Chief EU diplomat Josep Borrell said that the EU would approve an additional 3.5 billion euro military aid package for Ukraine. Australia followed up by promising Kiev 70 military hardware units and 105 mm artillery shells. The United States announced a new military assistance package worth $500 million. Let me emphasise one more time that the only thing these new arms deliveries to Ukraine achieve is escalate the armed conflict. These are irresponsible steps causing multiple casualties, including among civilians in the region.
The West has now focused on persuading countries of the Global South to take part in the so-called Peace Summit. Organised without Russia, it purports to find a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. What a preposterous logic. On the one hand, they accuse Russia of taking part in the conflict, while on the other hand seeking out the Kiev regime when it comes to discussing what they call a peace settlement. Do they believe that if they come together in a ritual discussion, this will somehow bring about peace, considering the situation? Or if they invite countries which have nothing to do with this story but who can lend them their moral and informational support? Can peace materialise against the backdrop of these never-ending arms supplies? In fact, the sole purpose of this gathering is to promote Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called peace formula, which is a total fraud. This summit constitutes yet another attempt to persuade the world that there is no alternative to this formula. I am certain that it will all come down to yet another effort to promote the false messages underpinning the peace formula and the event. Those who choose to attend it will be able to see this up close.
We have explained on multiple occasions that the Kiev regime’s would-be peace plan has nothing to do with peace. In fact, it is a list of ultimatums for Russia, including withdrawing troops from Donbass, Crimea, Zaporozhye and the Kherson Region, which are lawfully part of Russia, paying Kiev compensation and reparations, and pleading guilty in quasi-legal tribunals established by the Kiev regime with the proactive support of the West. A single document brings together all the nonsense coming from their propaganda. This is nothing more than an ideological construct.
Attempts to determine the outcome of the Ukraine conflict without Russia’s involvement are doomed to failure. Were it not the case, this would have happened a long time ago. Go ahead and try to bring about order and peace. Do you expect this kind of discussion to lead to any progress? On the contrary, it will only make things worse. The sole purpose of inviting as many participants as possible to this would-be summit, primarily from the countries of the Global South, is to designate them as siding with the staunch supporters of the Western point of view on the developments in and around Ukraine.
We have seen this quite a few times already, for example in Syria. How many times did they hold events promising to achieve a complete settlement in just a couple of days? I remember the United States convening gatherings of this kind among like-minded countries in the centre of Europe. What came out of these initiatives? No one even remembers what they were called. They failed to deliver for one simple reason: any knowledgeable and experienced person understands that when it comes to making peace, the most important thing is to stop bloodshed and arms supplies. Without this, roundtable discussions, conferences or symposiums will not produce any results. The Kiev regime has proven this point. They have taken part in talks on several occasions, entered into agreements and confirmed their position only to back out of it right after that. We cannot trust a word they say there. There are documents signed by Western leaders, namely Germany and France, and these documents made its way into a UN Security Council resolution. Turns out, no one intended to carry it out despite the fact that as a UN Security Council resolution constitutes a binding commitment. What will they do if any commitments are put forth during summits of this kind? Nothing. They can simply forget them. All they want is to tick the box by holding yet another political publicity event.
We call on all responsible states, which truly seek peace and even more so express the desire and readiness to play a constructive role in the search for a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict, not to participate in this provocative undertaking. The West needs your presence at the “summit” just to create a semblance of a broad support for its results. But this will make prospects for a peaceful settlement even more remote.
Relief efforts continue in the wake of the humanitarian and environmental disaster at the Kakhovka Hydropower Plant which Kiev engineered on June 6, 2023, when a Ukrainian missile strike destroyed the dam, causing an uncontrolled dumping of water from the Kakhovka reservoir down the lower reaches of the Dnieper. As of today, we know of about 48 deaths and 126 hospitalised persons. Considerable environmental damage was caused, thousands of animals perished at the Lower Dnieper National Nature Park, fields along the Dnieper were washed away, and the North Crimean Canal is likely to shallow. The destruction of the Kakhovka HPP has led to dangerous chemical fertilisers, pesticides and fuel leaking into the local bodies of water. Did any member of the Kiev regime think about the consequences? The important thing for them was to commit a sabotage attack, make their presence felt, and show to the world what they are capable of. In total, 35 communities with over 22,000 houses are located in the flood zone. Will this make the Kiev regime doubt their actions? Never! For normal people, the presence of thousands of people in a flood zone is a disaster, a tragedy, a heartbreak, and motivation to offer help. For the Bankova Street vampires, this is yet another reason to rejoice and have a celebration (judging by their inadequate behaviour the morning after). The water level in the town of Novaya Kakhovka reached 12 metres at one point.
The related Russian agencies, including the Emergencies Ministry, Health Ministry, and others continue their non-stop efforts to eliminate the aftermath of the disaster, implementing epidemic control measures to avoid an outbreak of diseases and helping people in the worst-hit areas. People are also getting financial support.
In this context, we were surprised by the response from international organisations, which, despite their purported objectivity and impartiality, have again declined to condemn the crimes committed by the Kiev regime, the true perpetrator of this act of sabotage. They are “unaware” and “lack information.” Something else is needed for them to make relevant conclusions. Evidently, the above is not enough.
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to yet another victim of the Kiev regime, Alexander Zakharchenko, the first head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, who would have turned 47 on June 26. For the whole of that day, people brought flowers to the site of his death. Alexander Zakharchenko, who signed the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements and did everything in his power to ensure peace in Donbass, was killed in a bomb blast organised by Ukrainian saboteurs on August 31, 2018. The Kiev regime was using terrorist methods against its political opponents, allegedly their own citizens, as already back then, complying with the orders they received from their Western sponsors, yet the international community wanted to hear nothing about it and looked the other way lest it saw anything. Any chance for a peaceful settlement was destroyed. Alexander Zakharchenko was a paragon of a true freedom fighter, true patriot, and defender of his homeland from those whom we now legitimately call Nazis and neo-fascists, and he remains as such in our memory.
All the above-mentioned facts prove once again that those who are attempting to oppose us on behalf of the Kiev regime are open Nazis, terrorists, as well as corrupt politicians and thieves into the bargain. Therefore, there is no alternative to implementing the goals of the special military operation.
EU’s new financial instrument for Ukraine
On June 20, 2023, the European Commission proposed creating a new instrument to provide predictable financial support for Ukraine over the 2024-2027 period. Guided by the principle of providing “sustained support” to Ukraine regardless of anything, the EU bureaucrats continue to make loud statements about new financial assistance to Kiev. This time, they have announced the establishment of a new instrument, the Ukraine Facility, designed in word to help the Kiev authorities ensure macro-financial stability and infrastructure reconstruction and modernisation. I wonder what stability they mean, considering that President Zelensky and his thugs have destroyed nearly everything in the country. One of the goals of this initiative is to carry out the main internal reforms as part of Ukraine’s EU accession process. Apart from the proposed donor assistance from third countries and organisations, the initiative openly mentions the use of the Russian state assets frozen in the EU.
In fact, the idea is to carry out the destructive policy of enslaving Ukraine through debt, and robbing the country of its sovereignty. Moreover, they are not acting altruistically. They claim that they will transfer the Russian assets to the Kiev regime and also add a little from their own pockets. But in fact, they will lend these funds to Ukraine. The EU and the US are ready to give anything on credit. For example, a significant part of funds under the Ukraine Facility is to be provided through “highly concessional loans.” I believe they should have said honestly that they mean fast-disbursing loans.
It is obvious that Ukraine will hardly have any funds to repay these loans in the near future. The EU’s financial assistance has greatly contributed to the record high growth of Ukraine’s state debt, which the Ukrainian Finance Ministry estimated at over $124 billion as of April 2023. It looks like the future generations of Ukrainians will have to pay the current bills, and it would be reasonable to assume that they won’t pay in money. These loans will be repaid with resources and the remaining economy and sovereignty. They have already lost their land, although it’s not clear what they used it to pay for. They will lose everything else, provided the future generations inherit anything. The potential result will be the ultimate looting and bankruptcy of Ukraine.
Today, many people in Ukraine are aware of the grim reality. They say that Ukraine as a state is no more, and not because of Russia but because people like Ukraine’s current leaders stood at the helm over the past decades. These goals were set for those who claimed to be patriots but in fact implemented Western (and not only Western) ideas. When I say, “not only Western,” I mean that the Kiev politicians, guided by their own corrupt interests, stopped at nothing to grab as much as possible for themselves. You can see the result.
Today, I heard an expression that astounded me. An avatar is the only thing left of Ukraine. Those who have no interest in the country’s history cannot say what this avatar stands for, or if there is nothing but a vacuum behind it. There is no denying that.
The situation is being further complicated by the fact that the EU’s allocations are underpinned by a set of conditions aimed at strengthening the Western influence in Ukraine. Under the new instrument, the Ukrainian authorities will need to prepare a Ukraine Plan, detailing its vision for the reforms it intends to undertake to receive funds. The focus must be on a public administration reform and transition towards a green and digital economy. In other words, a country that prospered thanks to agriculture and that during the Soviet era, had its own fundamental science and well-developed industry, will be turned into an appendage based on Western principles. The West will have the final say on resources while Ukraine is to move towards a green and digital economy based on EU standards and with the direct approval by the European Commission. A multilayer mechanism will be established to audit the use of funds, including the use of inspections carried out “at any moment” of project implementation. Since this plan is actually a “development” strategy for Ukraine, the EU’s initiative is nothing other than an external administration plan.
One more proof of Brussels’ cynical policy towards Ukrainian authorities is that financial assistance will only be provided on the condition of compliance with fundamental human rights and freedoms of all citizens. Was it Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who decided that the Kiev regime must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens? The idea could only dawn on those who have no notion of what is happening in Ukraine. What rights and freedoms? What citizens? There is nothing but cannon fodder, dictate and terrorism in Ukraine. Who has rights and freedoms there? Moreover, the European Commission has pointed out that concern for ethnic minorities is a major aspect of its collaboration with the Kiev regime. Who, according to the European Commission, should Kiev take care of? Russians? Kiev had eight long years to do that [after 2014] and many years before that. When we tried to draw the attention of the European Commission, the EU and all those Western institutions to that, they refused to regard it as a serious problem. Why have they decided to promote absolutely unrealistic provisions that contradict even President Zelensky’s laws, namely, a ban on Russian books and the Russian language, as well as direct persecution of those who continue to speak Russian? There is no understanding this.
It is clear to everyone except the European Commission that Kiev will not honour this provision. Have they had too many Pfizer injections? What’s going on anyway? This is even clear to the Western handlers who turned a blind eye to the Ukrainian government’s years-long policy of segregation and elimination of Russian speakers and its wholesale offensive against media freedom. Or do they think that putting this provision on paper will protect them from responsibility because they hoped that Kiev would respect and try to implement it? We all know what this logic usually leads to.
We took notice of the opinion on the 2022 Ukrainian law on national minorities (communities), released by the Council of Europe Venice Commission on June 12, 2023. You don’t know whether to laugh or cry, as the saying goes. In fact, at the outset, caring for ethnic minorities used to serve as a pretext for sending financial assistance to Ukraine. On the other hand, this same institution, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, is not from a different planet or another continent. The European Commission is woven into the Council of Europe’s structure.
The Foreign Ministry has already explained the discriminatory nature of this law, concealed as it is behind formal references to international agreements on protecting ethnic minorities. Hungary and Romania rejected this document. As you know. there are big Hungarian and Romanian communities living in Ukraine.
However, in the current political environment we cannot expect an advisory body of the Council of Europe to come up with an unbiased assessment of the situation as far as law and human rights are concerned. The opinion became yet another intentional step towards destroying the reputation of what used to be a respected international institution conceived as an independent expert advisory body on legal matters.
Instead of facilitating constitutional development and strengthening democratic institutions, the Venice Commission volunteered to convert its expert capabilities into a tool of political posturing. Today, its opinions are only good for designating friends and foes. All they do is assign labels: these are friends who can do as they please, while those are foes and they cannot do anything. Friends get minor, if any, reproaches in a paternalistic tone, while they spare no effort in chiding the foes. We have seen this many times. All you have to do is open recent opinions on Russian laws to see how far they are willing to go with the stern language and terminology they use, as well as their decisions whenever the commission is on a mission to carry out a political hit job.
Ukraine enjoys the status of the preferred enfant terrible and gets special treatment from the would-be experts in the Venice Commission.
There is a tradition to include only superficial objections in opinions of this kind by literally repeating the commission’s earlier conclusions regarding the Ukrainian laws on education and language. In particular, the commission once again noted the “differential treatment between the languages of indigenous peoples.” What do they mean by “differential?” This is when you want to impose a single language despite the fact that an important part of your population has been speaking a different language for many centuries. The law bans the use of a language which is many people’s mother tongue. In addition, people who stay true to their native language suffer from harassment and psychological pressure. This is what they call “differential treatment.” For many years now, these experts have been using this shameful euphemism to conceal outright discrimination against the Russian language by the Kiev regime.
This has now gone beyond discrimination by evolving into a crusade against the Russian language. The West is carrying out a global effort to cancel the Russian language and culture, and the Kiev regime is part of it. They failed a year ago, but stayed on course. They use every opportunity to advance this agenda.
Kiev simply ignored the earlier recommendations from the Council of Europe and the OSCE to amend its language laws. We are certain that this time too all the objections will be ignored. After all, deficiencies in the rule of law and system-wide human rights violations, including the rights of ethnic minorities have already become the hallmark of the criminal regime led by President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky. But as long as he is ready to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian, using the money he receives from his Western sponsors, he will not be held accountable for violating universal and European values in terms of promoting cultural, religious and language diversity, no matter how gross these violations become.
By ignoring the Russophobic aspects of Ukraine’s new law on national minorities and justifying the Russian language ban in the context of the alleged “present Russian aggression against Ukraine,” the Venice Commission has de facto given the green light to an aggressive push to root out everything Russian and promote forced assimilation by relying on the clumsy notion of a “transitional period.”
Members of the Venice Commission certainly know that within the Kiev regime everyone uses Russian in their communications. If not, they are not experts on this matter. If they know this, just as we do, how can they get their heads around this? What does Russia have to do with it, if within a single country its gang of leaders speaks Russian, while preventing all others from using it? They were brought to power with the sole mission of taking away and destroying everything that brought us closer together all these years.
We are witnessing an attempt to offer international legitimacy to the persecution of Russian speakers in Ukraine by creating a far-fetched legal framework for cancelling everything Russian. It seems that this is what the commission is after, along with all other structures within the Council of Europe and in the West in general.
With these double standards in plain view, we can no longer call for these partisan bodies to respond to the outrage and illegal actions perpetrated in Ukraine. Russia proceeds from the premise that delivering on the objectives of the special military operation will restore justice in Ukraine and enable ethnic groups living on its territory to enjoy all their rights.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s interview with France 24 and FranceInfo
I cannot fail to mention French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent interview for the France 24 and FranceInfo television channels. He labelled Russia “the sole colonial power of the 21st century” waging an imperialist war and being a destabilising influence in Africa. That’s philosophy and the flight of thought on a truly breath-taking scale. I don’t know how they put this in French, but we talk in such cases about “one’s guilty conscience speaking.” Perorations of this kind are inappropriate considering France’s dubious role in Africa. The international community remembers the dirty pages of Paris’s colonial history; France is still striving to exploit Africa’s resources, masking its neo-colonial methods and schemes with false rhetoric and pretended concern for the Africans’ welfare.
While posing as a champion of international law and the territorial integrity of states, France continues to illegally hold foreign lands.
Let’s go through the list. Suffice it to recall Paris’s stubborn disregard of the UN General Assembly decisions on the Union of the Comoros’ rights to the island of Mayotte, the ongoing disputes with Madagascar over the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean, and with Mauritius, over Tromelin Island. France refuses to acknowledge its responsibility for war crimes and the consequences of nuclear tests in Algeria, for the aggression against Libya in 2011 and the destruction of Libyan statehood, which gave rise to many of the current problems in the Sahara-Sahel region. Paris is trying to shift the blame for the consequences of their own criminal actions onto African states, as we see in Mali, for example.
Why don’t we ask the people living in African states who oppressed them throughout the long history of the continent’s “civilised” development and continues to do so? Who was responsible for the “robbery and outrages” President Macron described? Who plundered Africa’s natural resources and removed its cultural treasures to their own museums? Ask them who has been genuinely helping them to grow, to strengthen their statehoods and economies, and ensure security. The Central African Republic, Mali and Burkina Faso have actually answered these questions by asking the French neo-colonisers to clear out. This is the reason for the hatred that seethes in the French President’s words.
Lithuania’s new repressive moves
Lithuania is moving towards a totalitarian police state by leaps and bounds. I can give you examples.
First, world-renowned figure skater Margarita Drobyazko was stripped of her state awards by the Lithuanian authorities for participating in popular Russian ice shows. Recently, they also initiated the procedure for depriving the athlete of Lithuanian citizenship under a truly absurd pretext: she allegedly poses a threat to national security. How? By skating or just by being beautiful?
At the same time, Vilnius continues to clean up its information landscape and fight pluralism of opinion. This is also a neo-democracy. Now also online. The Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania has decided to block IP addresses where Russian television channels can be watched.
The country has been taking these steps amid the gross fabrication of criminal cases for political reasons. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Lithuania upheld the decision of the court of original jurisdiction and the appeal court on the imprisonment of the well-known Lithuanian opposition politician, public figure and journalist Algirdas Paleckis. It is noteworthy that the charges against him – espionage for Russia – were never proven by the investigation. That is, the investigation failed to make a strong case against him. So, they used some vague phrase, “preparation for espionage.” Straight from George Orwell.
It is no longer surprising that “enlightened” Europe is calmly watching and indulging police terror in the Baltics. Did you expect anything else of people who give billions to terrorists on Bankova Street? All they want is to spite Russia as much as possible. They will go to any lengths for this, as they have repeatedly demonstrated.
We know from history what such experiments lead to: every totalitarian regime, Nazis and fascists included, started with the violation of personal rights and freedoms.
The response of official
As you know, September 3 is the Day of Victory over Militaristic Japan and the End of World War II of 1939-1945.
Once again,
We would like to recall that, following the surrender of Nazi Germany,
The new name for the military glory day is entirely consistent with the momentous events of 78 years ago, [1945], which proved crucial for the entire international community. This decision restores the historical truth. We provided
At the same time, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the approval of the new bill, signed by the President into law on June 24, 2023, is purely a domestic Russian affair. We emphatically oppose any outside attempts to influence this process. We stated this clearly and firmly to the Japanese side via diplomatic channels.
We cannot help but mention the fact that, in the past 18 months, we have been witnessing an unprecedented upsurge of Russophobia on the part of the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in connection with the situation in
Instead of voicing grievances,
Yet another case of discrimination against Russian athletes
The sanctions hysteria around Russian sports and our athletes being admitted to international competitions is still raging. Our Western ill-wishers are using all means available to hurt our country, including misinformation about the alleged decision of the IOC to admit Russian athletes to the 2024 Olympics in
At the same time, we believe that, unfortunately, we cannot count on the impartiality of the IOC or any other international sports federation led by an agenda-driven sports official.
A recent example: the Russian youth wrestling team was declined visas to
This shameful incident should become a signal for all participants in the global sports movement that any situation in their country that does not fit into the Western template can backfire on clean and honest athletes due to the puppet-like nature of the international sports agencies.
It is no secret that the brazen violation of the principle of autonomy of the international sports movement and the ongoing lawlessness against Russian athletes are the result of the anti-Russia course imposed by a narrow group of Western countries. International sports officials who obediently follow the orders of the collective West to refuse professional athletes admission to competitions are simply killing international sports. It is not international sports anymore but a sports get-together, a giveaway game. The absence of Russian athletes has a negative impact on the entertainment appeal of competitions, the commercial aspect, and on their representativeness.
On the contrary, our country is open to sports interaction and continues to focus on strengthening sports friendship with all constructively disposed countries and interstate associations. We continue to organise competitions in our country and take part in major international competitions and sports events. This year, the International Festival of University Sports of the BRICS, SCO and
The 55th anniversary of opening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons for signing
On July 1, 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), approved by a resolution of the UN General Assembly at an earlier date, was opened for signing. In the past 55 years, it has virtually become a universal international law tool and an important foundation for ensuring international peace and stability. In all, 191 states have signed the NPT to date.
Another NPT review cycle is to commence soon, and we hope that this cycle will help consolidate the treaty. This is yet another reason for re-examining issues that require solution and an opportunity to try to evaluate existing risks in a well-balanced spirit, a salient feature of the NPT’s foundations. This is even more important because the global security system is currently being seriously tested.
Obviously, now that the international situation has become extremely aggravated, signatory states must team up and facilitate a stable nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime, an element of maintaining global stability. Quite possibly, this is one of the few elements, if not the only one.
We are expecting states, parties to the NPT, to display due political will during the new review cycle and to do everything possible to implement the Treaty’s goals and objectives.
Resuming scheduled air transport to
Work continues to expand
We are convinced that this decision, adopted in the spirit of relations of strategic partnership, will bring fraternal Cuba that is located far away, but which we hold so dear, ever closer. Doubtless, this will provide a new impetus to our cultural-humanitarian and business ties and will also help resume the influx of Russian tourists to the familiar and hospitable
Preparing for the Forum of Campaigners against Modern Practices of Neocolonialism
There are plans to hold the Forum of Campaigners against Modern Practices of Neocolonialism in
President of Russia Vladimir Putin supported this initiative by the All-Russian Political Party United Russia. On March 30 and May 31, 2023, members of the international Organising Committee held their meetings under the guidance of United Russia Chairman Dmitry Medvedev.
Members of the leaderships of major political parties from Algeria, Brazil, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, China, Congo, Cuba, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Syria, Ethiopia and the Republic of South Africa took part in the meetings online and via videoconference.
The key objective was the joint elaboration of weighty and comprehensive measures to counter neocolonialism and neo-imperialism and to institute a permanent international mechanism (where influential political forces from various countries will be able to chart coordinated anti-colonial steps).
The concerned parties decided to work in line with the Forum’s preliminary programme and an appeal urging everyone to join this platform that is not directed against anyone, and which aims to help build an equitable world without oppression, sanctions and interference in domestic affairs.
The creation of an anti-colonial coalition meets the interests of the global majority during the consolidation of efforts aimed at countering the dictates of the
Maria Zakharova: Respecting the separation of powers principle, we rarely spoke about the activities of PACE or other parliamentary entities. However, the most recent session indeed deserved a brief review, and we did that.
I’ll explain why. Even after Russia withdrew from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the organisation seems to have a problem snapping out of it. One would have thought it was best to let go, with Russia gone and other things on their plate. The PACE member countries have more than enough problems of their own with the economy and finance, as well as corruption and internal disagreements. But no, we are still at the top of the PACE agenda. Their rhetoric rose to a fever pitch as they continue to churn out Russophobic documents.
On June 22, PACE approved a resolution on the Political Consequences of the Russian Federation’s War of Aggression against Ukraine. Who drew up this document? Perhaps they used certain expert services? Why would they? No need to invent anything new when they have tried and true Russophobes, in particular from Lithuania. This document, if you can call it that, contains a detailed list of proposals for the implementation of the pseudo-legal decisions of the 4th Council of Europe Summit in Reykjavik, held on May 16 and 17.
The organisation’s feverish activity clearly indicates that the collective West is neither going to admit its own mistakes in relations with our country, nor it is looking for some way out of the current situation, which is really their fault. The Strasbourg parliamentarians lament their failure to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including the fight against climate change; the dismantling of the collective security system in Europe; and the exacerbation of nuclear rhetoric.
Apparently, all the above is Russia’s fault. We are to blame for all of that. Wait, so it was us that orchestrated the coup in Kiev? Or wasn’t it? Or was it Paris, Berlin, Washington, London and Brussels again? They need to get this part clear.
They have been ignoring the numerous criminal acts that the Kiev regime has carried out with their own money – blowing up the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, attacks on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, and the shelling of civilian facilities on Russian territory – this only covers the past year. What about the years before that? The eight long years? They are definitely counting on the escalation of this conflict, calling for support for Ukraine’s bid to join NATO. Question: what does the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have to do with the alliance? It was supposed to be an independent European agency, whose mission was to underscore the special character and role of the European continent. No, they don’t seem interested in that. Maybe they are scared or just weak – they keep clinging to NATO. Why? Well, because they are already part of the alliance! NATO has long brought PACE to heel.
The Russophobic wing of PACE is obsessed with finding a niche in the Western campaign to bring Russia to justice – hailing the creation of what they call registers of damage and special international tribunals. One question: when are they going to focus on Libya then? How about an international tribunal for the criminals who destroyed the Libyan statehood? If NATO is among their concerns, the United States of America should be one, too. Where is a tribunal and a register of damage from the years of occupation of Iraq? I think Syria, too, could make a huge number of claims once a register and tribunal for Syria are established. It is well known how many PACE and NATO countries were involved and what they did there.
As a reminder, we regard any decisions by such bodies as legally null and void. This much should be obvious. The problem is that they are imposing a false agenda, thus fostering a misleading perception.
The next PACE resolution adopted on the same day was War of Aggression Against Ukraine – Participation of Russian and Belarusian Athletes in the Paris 2024 Olympics and Paralympics? The title speaks for itself. PACE is calling on the International Olympic Committee to extend the 2022 ban on Russian and Belarusian athletes from major competitions until the “end of the conflict.” Look, this is parliament. It should not be about promoting some idea that emerged on the sidelines or was generated by some think tank. As a parliament, PACE must express the will of the people living in the Council of Europe countries. Has anyone asked them? Have any of these decisions been adopted through a referendum or at least mini-consultations? This is a very peculiar interpretation of the principle, keep politics out of sports. In addition, it shows a cynicism concerning the rights of Paralympic athletes, people with disabilities.
I would like to ask PACE, will the Council of Europe dare punish Ukrainian athletes for possible propaganda of Nazism? Do they maybe plan to adopt a resolution condemning the aggressive, terrorist, and extremist actions by the Kiev regime and accordingly, will that affect Ukrainian athletes’ participation or non-participation in international sporting events?
The outcome of the PACE session shows that, instead of seeking solutions for a peaceful settlement to the conflict, the organisation is bringing grist to the mill of supporters of the military scenario. They cannot do otherwise because they are part of this “aggressive infrastructure.” They are not an independent body. They are part of NATO thinking and NATO mechanisms. By issuing endless indulgences to Kiev, the Council of Europe bodies are turning into accomplices and hostages of the neo-Nazi regime and its Western handlers. Unfortunately, there are no sane players on the Strasbourg platform today capable of preventing the further degradation of the Council of Europe. But this is no longer our problem. They’ll have to deal with it themselves.
Question: The Moldovan authorities continue to talk about the Russian threat and their unlimited support for the Kiev regime. Do you think that
Maria Zakharova: As you know, we have commented on this a lot. It would be more correct to say that the collective West, through the
Unfortunately, Chisinau understands everything very well. Maia Sandu’s regime is doing this on purpose. They simply mislead people living in
Any sensible politician or a person who cares about what’s going on would never wish for their country to become a springboard for hostilities. But everything is fine here. The Moldovan leadership offers, invites and calls all kinds of trouble and misfortune to its territory. They also offer to send a group of Moldovan engineers to participate in demining the
At the same time,
Of course, this cannot but cause us concern. We have repeatedly pointed out to Chisinau that assistance from the collective West, including in the military sphere, serves its own interests exclusively. As experience shows, these interests are often pursued at the expense of the recipients of such assistance, or even on their ruins.
The Moldovan nation understands this very well, and an overwhelming majority is against transforming their country into a “logistics appendage” of NATO. The people of
Yes, we hope. But of course, we have no faith.
Maria Zakharova: This is yet another legal outrage by the American government against Russian nationals, who face persecution for political reasons and are exposed to routine extraterritorial enforcement practices, as well as designated on illegitimate sanctions lists. All this has become the norm for Washington.
It is now researchers, academics and civil rights activists who face this barefaced pressure on behalf of the US quasi-justice system. This is not something new and did not start just a year or two ago. This is a phenomenon spanning the past decade. I believe that this is indicative of the punitive nature of the US system of quasi justice.
The charges brought against Natalia Burlinova are clearly absurd. What is the goal here? There is no doubt that the goal is to pressure those representing Russian research institutions and their American colleagues who are open to working with Russia. What are the accusations against her? She stands accused of networking, and promoting horizontal communications between the civil societies of our two countries. I believe that this is what we need at this point.
Overall, we have seen what happened to Maria Butina and how the US justice and penitentiary systems sought to punish her for an email in support of promoting bilateral relations. They did everything to try and destroy her as a human being. It seems that Natalia Burlinova is next in line.
It is quite telling that the repressive actions by the US authorities coincided with the Myrotvorets, a Ukrainian website, designating members of Russian NGOs on its lists. We know from experience that this poses a direct threat to the lives and health of these people. Cases where people included in the database of this criminal website were killed have been in the public spotlight. They include journalists Oles Buzina, Darya Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky (Maxim Fomin), and Oleg Kalashnikov, a political activist.
We call on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Matteo Mecacci, and other international human rights bodies to pay attention to these outrageous initiatives by the US system of quasi justice and political witch hunt, and respond accordingly.
Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the State of Israel released a statement on June 16, 2023. In it, the Russian diplomats working in Tel-Aviv offered a detailed comment on this topic. I can only add that on May 18, 2023, the authorised representatives of the Russian Federation and Jerusalem municipality, with the assistance of the Russian Embassy and the Israeli Foreign Ministry, signed a settlement with a protocol attached to it to specify the boundaries and acreage of Russia’s land in West Jerusalem.
What is this all about? Russia purchased this plot of land in 1885. You heard me right. This deed was entered into a document signed on June 19, 1895, and titled “The register of Russian properties in Palestine and Syria, except private holdings.” This latest settlement with the Jerusalem municipality sets forth and reaffirms Russia’s historical rights to this land plot. It provides for opening an exclusively administrative station for providing consular services to Russian nationals on this land once all the necessary conditions are in place. This was not and is not about the transfer of the Embassy to Jerusalem or the placement of its branch there. We have seen all kinds of articles on this subject. Let me emphasise once again that Russia has not changed its approach to the status of Jerusalem.
I can also add that Russia is committed to defending its property interests in the Holy Land by working closely with the relevant agencies in Israel and Palestine. We will carry on with these efforts.
Question: According to a recent poll published by NBC, up to 74 percent of respondents believe that the
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that it is the
What's the difference between our approach and the American one? When I say "our approach," it is more about countries that support traditional values and stand for a healthy perception of democracy and are opposed to liberal diktat. We assume that different points of view in society have the right to exist and are natural. But they must be harmonised. That is the main task of the state, among others.
And in the
I think it is up to the Americans themselves to assess. Indeed, for us these figures are unsurprising, but revealing.
Maria Zakharova: Do you think there should be some kind of a table? I would like to draw your attention to the statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin (1, 2, 3), as well as to the interview Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave to the RT channel on June 26.
The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed that Russian President Vladimir Putin received numerous calls. His colleagues from over the world expressed solidarity, support and confidence that the situation would be under control and would return to the constitutional framework. And that’s what happened.
Sergey Lavrov also had several telephone conversations at the initiative of foreign partners. Many called our ambassadors. Representatives of the authorities and public figures expressed support, asked clarifying questions and hoped for the crisis to be overcome.
Many statements have been made in recent days. In particular,
Maria Zakharova: We are making every effort to implement the devised large-scale roadmap. It includes documents signed by the heads of state, and relevant commissions under the auspices of representatives of the governments of our countries. Everything is being done on a daily basis to implement this plan.
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this in my opening remarks.
As for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, they do not officially mark this date, but modern historians call it the day World War II ended. Instead, both countries celebrate August 15, which commemorates Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule of 1910-1945.
Maria Zakharova: In his statement, President Vladimir Putin drew a clear line between those who were behind this mutiny and the overwhelming majority of fighters. The organisers have already been designated accordingly.
As for the overwhelming majority of fighters, the President described them as people who served their country and its people in good faith and performed their duty with honour. No one questioned their professionalism, merits or heroism. When political observers, public figures and politicians discuss these people, we must keep in mind this assessment by Russia’s leadership and people. Any attempt to place the organisers and the fighters under the same umbrella would be inappropriate since many fighters ignored being used and failed to understand what was being asked of them.
Let me emphasise this point for you since many experts failed to grasp this message. We need to look beyond the Wagner trademark, beyond this household name and go to the essence of the matter. The fact of the matter is that over the years these people have proven their worth in their frontline engagements by ensuring our national security and countering the Kiev regime. Before that, they excelled in Syria and in some African countries. I am referring to those who sacrificed their lives and served selflessly even after signing a contract. This is something to remember. Forgetting about that would pose an even bigger threat. We must be totally impartial on this matter. Once again, I invite you to read the Presidential statements.
As for whether they will stay in Africa, it is up to the sovereign African governments to decide. It has always been this way, in fact. It was the African states, their leadership and political leaders who turned to specialists, experts and instructors and signed contracts to invite them to their countries. They emphasised that their contractors were very effective in delivering on challenging tasks rather than focusing on political evaluations. States enjoy the sovereign right to invite and contract those who can benefit them, serve effectively, etc.
As for our relations with the African countries, we have talked about preparations for the Russia-Africa summit several times already. With only a couple of weeks left, preparations are in full swing. I think that as a US journalist working for an American title, you are well tuned into this subject, but maybe you are missing an essential aspect here, and I am not criticising you in any way, but just sharing my impression.
Russia has been promoting a frank and trust-based dialogue with many African countries. It is quite different compared to our dialogue with the West considering our geographical proximity and civilizational affinity. It could seem that we share the same creed with the West, considering that we share the same religious roots and our cultures are intertwined. It could seem that we have everything we need to understand each other quite well. However, it was not trust that underpinned our dialogue with the West. We trusted them but all we got in return were endless lies, deceits, manipulation, etc.
Trust dominates our relations with the African countries. We are frank and constructive when discussing our cooperation agenda and any current global issues. The upcoming summit will once again reaffirm our commitment to this frank dialogue on all matters. Neither side has ever shied away from sensitive, challenging issues, guided in our efforts by the legacy of trust and the awareness across the African continent of the historical role the Soviet Union and Russia played in promoting its independence.
Preserving this memory is essential. Today, we provided quite a few examples, including Japan, of efforts to erase or reshape the historical memory: without denying their past completely, they believe that it is worth forgetting. But the African continent knows and treasures its past. This offers a great foundation for our dialogue. Let me emphasise that we are open to discussing all issues in a trust-based manner. I am certain that the Russia-Africa Summit will once again drive this message home.
Maria Zakharova: I will divide this question into two parts. First, I will deal with talks and mediation and then I will talk about President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko.
While making statements on potential talks between Moscow and Kiev, the Kiev regime seems to forget for some unclear reason that in March 2022, it unilaterally broke off negotiations at the behest of the West. Later, on September 30, 2022, Kiev legalised this policy by adopting a law to this effect.
We have not heard any constructive proposals on resuming the negotiating process since then. To the contrary, there have just been requests, screams and demands to the West to supply them with more arms. Russia has been subjected to all kinds of insults and aggressive statements. Kiev deleted from the information space and blocked anything that was said about peace by people who cared, and who wanted to mediate. Ukrainian officials are competing with each other in their Russophobia and making unrealistic initiatives like the notorious “peace formula” that has nothing to do with settling the conflict. They reject mediation initiatives from other countries. I will cite just a few recent examples.
After meeting with the Pope, Vladimir Zelensky said in his interview with RAI TV on May 13, 2023, that with all due respect for the Pope, Ukraine did not need mediators but needed a just peace. So, this is about mediation. On May 30, 2023, Zelensky commented on China’s peace initiative: “As for China’s own peace initiative, we made it clear that we appreciate any peace-making efforts of other countries but our peace formula, our initiative is of fundamental importance.” He said more than once that only their “peace formula,” their initiative had the right to exist although it is bereft of reality. They are not interested in any other initiative.
You mentioned Mr Danilov, who went even further. On May 17 of this year, he said: “I would like to remind some international politicians that weapons are the best method of diplomatic communication in relations with Moscow.” It follows from this that Kiev is not thinking of peace at all. Moreover, Washington and Brussels are holding Kiev back from this approach. They are saying that the time for peace has not come and there is only the battlefield and the war until the last Ukrainian.
As for the role of President of Belarus, an allied nation, Alexander Lukashenko, President Vladimir Putin has already thought about this. He made a public statement about it. It is hard to add anything to this. According to protocol and our functional duties, I am not supposed to assess the presidents of other countries. The Russian leadership has already done this.
But I will allow myself an exception to this rule. There is no doubt that Alexander Lukashenko is an outstanding statesman, a skilful politician and diplomat, a man who can promptly resolve the most complicated and unconventional problems. He could definitely make a tangible contribution to reaching a peace agreement if the Kiev regime wanted to do this. However, in reality it does not want this.
I will recall that Mr Lukashenko’s actions stand behind these words and the recognition of his role. Thus, following his instructions, in February-March 2022, conditions were created in Belarus for talks between Russia and Ukraine. I am not even mentioning his hospitality and assistance in organising the longest negotiating marathon in February 2015 when the well-known Package of Measures was signed. On many occasions, Belarus and personally President Alexander Lukashenko acted as effective mediators, displaying goodwill and a striving for global peace, and helping those who needed assistance in establishing peace.
Marias Zakharova: No, they have not. They have done many nasty things – sanctions, planted media publications and support for those who threatened me (the Kiev regime and the Mirotvorets website) but they have not done what you mentioned.
As for methods, they use both conventional and non-conventional methods. We have often talked about this. They have stepped up this activity in the past year and a half but they started it long before this. American secret services “approach” Russian diplomats. This activity is anti-humane because they are using personal data, issues of family and children and health conditions. They have used many methods that go beyond traditional approaches. In recent years, they have come up with other methods as well.
You would be surprised but in the EU countries, this is done at NATO’s initiative. The US is also involved in this activity (ideologically, it is leading this). They put up flyers that are not ads but that are designed to recruit people and they mention telephone numbers, much like Nazi leaflets: “Russian Ivan, surrender! Cooperate with us and we’ll give you a can of jam and a pack of cookies.” They also use unconventional computer opportunities and the internet to send recruitment proposals to employee emails. They also resort to more illegal actions like hacking the websites at our foreign offices. They publish their announcements on these sites. All this started a long time ago. This is part of how Washington has destroyed our bilateral relations. We have been through many trials.
Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov spoke much about this. We have also published materials on this issue. Yes, the Americans are savvy. They include intimidation and psychological pressure with their actions. They believe this should work when combined with the blocking of accounts and the imposition of limits on travel in the country and terms for family members, non-issuance of visas and the creation of many obstacles in the way of our functional duties. Unfortunately, our embassies are even subjected to violent attacks of aggressive actions. Molotov cocktails have been thrown at some buildings; others have been stormed; they have also broken into homes. All this is done as a package to create a destabilising situation that facilitates this recruitment approach.
Maria Zakharova: We have commented on this topic many times.
Maria Zakharova: We are concerned about the increasing number of armed incidents and ceasefire violations in Nagorno-Karabakh. We call on the parties to show restraint and to resolve all contentious issues peacefully, politically and diplomatically in cooperation with the command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent. We believe that a de-escalation of the situation would be facilitated by quick action to fully unblock the Lachin Corridor and create conditions for normal life among the civilian population.
Maria Zakharova: I assume this is because Russia’s role is documented in the relevant written document, signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. This role cannot be questioned because it has been confirmed by the conflicting countries. There was consensus on this issue.
I answered a similar question during the previous briefing. Once again, what concerns the investigation into the circumstances of the 44-day war in the autumn 2020, is Armenia’s internal issue. All the questions for the Prime Minister of Armenia were heard in the context of ongoing internal investigations, debates and attempts to find the truth. This is the internal affair of Armenia. If there is any attempt to find malicious Russian intent, it’s from the evil one, a false message and pure misinformation. Any approach like this can be answered with a quote from the document signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. It was Russia and President Putin personally who stopped the bloodshed, and Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh are enforcing the ceasefire.
Maria Zakharova: This is a question for our Defence Ministry and those specific subordinate agencies of the Ministry of Defence that conclude contracts and supply armaments. This is outside the Foreign Ministry’s competence.
Maria Zakharova: This issue is also within the competence of the Defence Ministry. At the same time, I would like to note that Russia has repeatedly expressed its negative attitude towards the possible emergence of permanent or semi-permanent NATO infrastructure in the South Caucasus. Our position remains unchanged.
Maria Zakharova: I think this is hardly relevant to the issue of integration. This is our spiritual rapprochement obviously. When you know that there are people who are not just indifferent to your problem, trouble or tragedy but treat it as their own and are ready to take responsibility and probably part of a it, it’s worth a lot. This attitude not only brings people closer together but makes them a family and gives them strength. We don’t need to prove our family feelings and ties.
As for integration, the unifying processes of Russia and Belarus rest on their centuries-long friendship and neighbourliness and common interests in improving the living standards of their people. Now the main thing is a legislative foundation for such interaction. It has been drafted. You know about these agreements and the integration roadmap that has both a political outline and practical applied documents. Regardless of any trials, Russia and Belarus remain loyal allies and reliable partners.
President of the Republic of Belarus and Chairman of the Union State Supreme State Council Alexander Lukashenko took a personal initiative to help settle the current situation. This is yet another demonstration of the special character of bilateral ties and the strength of the Union State and our common understanding of the importance of preserving stability and cohesion in the face of external and internal challenges.
Maria Zakharova: I have no information about his location. As you understand, this is not within the Foreign Ministry’s competence.
As for the second question, obviously this is about State Department Press Secretary Matthew Miller’s response to a question by a journalist at a briefing on June 26 of this year. As I understand it, this is about some old accusations. They were not made today. We already commented on them.
As for the judicial aspect of extradition, I can say that no Russian citizen can be extradited to another state. All Russian citizens have the right to rely on Russia’s assistance in protecting them from illegal attempts to prosecute them abroad.
As for the events of June 24, we will figure out everything ourselves, without outside commentators. Those who wanted to express support, did that and those who wanted to help, did that as well. We remember and acknowledge all this and will not forget.
Maria Zakharova: It is possible to reach many different conclusions from this. Some have already been reached and some are still to be reached. I am sure that not everything has been said and determined. There is no doubt about this. You are right in saying that the West does not understand this.
On that day, I received a message from a Russian citizen who responded to the words of French President Emmanuel Macron. He said the situation testified to a split in Russia, the fragility and weakness of the country, its army and people. She wrote to me “those who say this don’t know Russians. Two men in a village may beat each other for a chicken stolen during a drinking argument, but if a bear comes, they will always unite.” I’ll emphasise that this is not my invention. This message was sent to me at 5:28 pm on Monday. Western analysts should remember this when they are trying to tell us something about ourselves, analysing what we are doing or trying to pull us apart. I don’t know if this women invented this herself or took it from somewhere. But these words were coming from the depths of her heart, and I had to quote them. Please convey them to all our Western “non-friends” and even enemies. They should know this.
The situation on June 24 has shown the main thing – the people are united and understand the essence of the ongoing processes, that they appreciate peace, stability and the internal feeling of unity and cohesion above everything else. This feeling creates conditions for all the rest (also important but impossible to achieve without the above). Historically, we have passed through many trials and with different results but we have demonstrated the unity of the country. There were people that asked whether it was possible to catch fish in troubled waters inside the country and play on the feelings of the Russian people. It is possible but only to a certain point – eventually it will all play out. Their bet will never play.
You are right in saying that one of the main conclusions from this whole situation is the unifying and consolidation of the nation that does not oppose anyone inside but is united inside and is at one with the state and society. The nation assumed a responsible attitude to these events.
Maria Zakharova: This is certainly not a question for me or the Foreign Ministry, but I have already partially answered it. Maybe indirectly but I gave an explanation on this. You should realise that this is a question on an entirely different level and sphere than our ministry.
Question: Did foreign intervention stand behind Prigozhin’s mutiny?
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with RT that our competent bodies are investigating this now. We don’t want to make assumptions but want to wait for the factual results.
Second, you can see today Mr Lavrov’s interview with Channel One, where he devotes much time to answering this question.
Maria Zakharova: Russia continues to work to comprehensively resolve the situation in and around Syria as soon as possible, which suggests the legitimate government control of the entire territory of the country. As you know, the government does not control the entire territory for one simple reason: part of Syria’s territory remains occupied. Everyone knows that it is the United States that continues to occupy this territory. This also implies the efforts to ensure the security of its borders with neighbouring states based on consideration of each other’s legitimate concerns. The comprehensive resolution of these issues will make it possible to prevent similar developments.
Maria Zakharova: You are confusing terms. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko joined in as a mediator to resolve a certain situation that they managed to settle jointly. Do not connect two different things; they are different issues. I do not want to discuss this issue.
The mediatory efforts were focused on a specific episode. I have already mentioned their role and significance. There should be no doubt.
Maria Zakharova: I find it hard to discuss this. If he made this request, it means he did it.
Indeed, the word “mediation” has unfortunately started acquiring a negative connotation in global practice these days because many of those who called themselves mediators turned out to be people or organisations with double standards, to put it mildly. They either failed to actually mediate or did something diametrically opposite. I believe that an actual resolution to this situation should reinstate the true meaning of the word “mediation.”
I respect the position of a person who was directly involved in these developments. However, I would like to show what genuine mediatory efforts are all about. Today, these efforts have become completely opposite in many respects. We see that many people from overseas are eager to mediate in the region, specifically, in the post-Soviet countries near Russian borders even though they are not part of our region. At the same time, they incite tensions and pit warring parties involved in difficult situations against each other. They act deliberately in the opposite direction. Many people therefore do not trust the word “mediation.” It would be great to see this term exonerated in the context of what we have seen, so that people can realise that mediation can and must be something worthy, aiming to achieve a genuine result, displaying a professional approach and emotions like friendship, brotherhood, open intentions and true goals. I am trying to use this word in this context only. It pains me to see how many people wear the costume of a “mediator” when it is nothing more than camouflage concealing questionable goals and objectives.
Maria Zakharova: Russian instructors (or whatever you prefer to call them) have not been deliberately pushing anyone out. This is a major misconception replicated from article to article, from question to question, from material to material. They have not been forcing anyone out. France withdrew from Mali and the Central African Republic of its own accord. Moreover, as representatives of those countries say, France didn’t just leave, it abandoned and betrayed them at a very difficult time in their history. I heard such assessments.
You know this popular phrase – if there is a void, something will fill it. To be honest, we sometimes became victims of this approach too, where we left somewhere and abandoned certain connections, contacts, or participation for later, until better times. Then our place was taken. We also have many such examples. One might recall certain betrayals. Someone might have thought it made sense to withdraw and concentrate on something else for the time being because we could always return. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to return.
The current situation is not about someone being “forced out” by someone else. The fact is that the African countries invited Russian instructors when they could no longer use the services of French instructors because they left. When France realised it was losing the market (this was a regular services market for them), its influence (image is important), when the French realised it was collapsing and disappearing forever, they started using mala fide methods such as misinformation. They began denigrating our cooperation on this track – not necessarily interstate ties, just African countries’ interaction with private companies and instructors. It is essential to understand why those instructors are there in the first place.
Question: Could the Wagner Group start a riot in Africa? They operate there too.
Maria Zakharova: Was that sarcasm? This situation was too complex and tragic to make it a target for irony or sarcasm. I do not think it should be looked at from this angle.
One can hypothesise about anything. You might have asked where the next earthquake will occur. The likelihood of one happening tomorrow or today anywhere is high enough. Or, on the contrary, something good will happen. No earthquake will occur where it was expected. Why should I hypothesise? This is outside my job responsibilities. And you should not be concerned about that.
Maria Zakharova: I suggest you read Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT of June 26, where he said that he did not see any panic or any change in Russia’s relations with the African countries. On the contrary, he received calls and words of support from the region.
I also saw those countries’ reactions in public, with a detailed understanding of the situation. I think we had better proceed from that.
Maria Zakharova: I can't imagine what Alexey Danilov was talking about. I think you need to check with him. If he gives you names, it will be interesting. I have no idea. It could be anything. Maybe a projection on the “good Russians.” Or those the West has supported for decades with American grants under the guise of “representation from Russia.” I don't know who or what he was talking about.
Maria Zakharova: No meetings are planned by the Russian Foreign Ministry. If anything changes, we will let you know, but there were no such plans initially. There are no such meetings in the schedule.
Question: But have they been requested?
Maria Zakharova: No meetings have been requested because they were not planned. This was discussed awhile ago. It is not on our agenda. Naturally, we also keep this question under review. But the Foreign Ministry is not involved in these meetings.
Maria Zakharova: On June 27, the Foreign Ministry invited Ronen Kraus, Chargé d'Affaires of the State of Israel to Moscow, for a talk, where certain public statements by Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Michael Brodsky were brought to the Israeli representative’s attention. As you know, unfortunately, his statements about the search for Ukrainian identity and the country’s new “heroes” were strangely out of touch with current realities, and most importantly, with historical truth. He sounded like he was justifying... actually, he said that figures such as Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich have become new symbols of Ukraine. In fact, not Ukraine, but the Kiev regime.
Yesterday, the Israeli representative was told that Russia and Israel had worked together in the past to rebuff attempts to rewrite history and glorify Nazi henchmen, including on international platforms. The two countries are active in the UN and other international organisations. The Foreign Ministry emphasised the importance of continuing joint efforts on this track and called for unambiguously condemning those who praise war criminals such as Bandera and Shukhevich, with the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims, including Jews on their hands, in an attempt to encourage Russophobic sentiments.
I would like to point out something else. On the one hand, you raised the question of Israel's position. At first, I wanted to suggest you ask the Israeli Foreign Ministry, official bodies or public organisations. On second thought, I decided against suggesting this.
Let's all together ask these questions to the victims of those torturers and killers. Let's just imagine this for a minute. But we won't last even a minute. It's too horrible. But at least for a couple of seconds, let’s try to focus and imagine we could talk with the hundreds of thousands of people who fell victims to such criminals, to those who have now become a symbol of the Kiev regime. Imagine we have the opportunity to ask them now which side of history is “right.”
Question: The answer is obvious.
Maria Zakharova: So that’s that. There is a lot of situational decision-making, politics and diplomacy in this world. For the most part, it serves the cause of peace, but some of it is misused. Things happen. But there is the historical truth that cannot be canceled – a measure to calibrate ourselves against.
I suggest that every time you hear that whitewashing Bandera and Shukhevich is okay, that they are just images and their connection with the Nazis can be ignored, and they can be seen as “builders” of the Ukrainian state – try to ask the victims of those criminals whether this is consistent with their side of history. As you correctly said, the answer is obvious. This should inspire us all.
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov talked about the start of the investigation. I can confirm again that Russian competent bodies are doing this. This investigation is now ongoing. I don’t want to speak in slogans or about something unsubstantiated because we will instantly hear that all this is demagogy.
I’d like to draw your attention to the interview with Mr Lavrov on Channel One today; it will be broadcast this evening, Moscow time. But many quotes from it have already been made everywhere. Watch it – the Russian Foreign Minister said many interesting things in this interview. I will confirm once again that the investigation is ongoing.
Maria Zakharova: First, this is the state of Western democracies – they are doing what completely contradicts their verbal declarations.
Second, this is the manifestation of the dictatorship of liberalism. On the one hand, it declares that everything is allowed and everyone is free, that there is equality and tolerance everywhere. But on the other hand, it resorts to harassment, discrimination, and even up to racism, xenophobia, intolerance and the like.
Third, the Baltic regimes are absolutely nationalistic and this attitude does not concern Russians alone. In principle, this is very similar to what the Kiev regime is preaching.
It is not just the Russian language and Russian speakers that are subjected to harassment in Ukraine, otherwise, Hungary and Romania would not have any problems. Meanwhile, today they are blocking many decisions on Ukraine just because the rights of their national minorities are not ensured on its territory. The position of the people that are not national minorities but ethnic groups is even worse.
The Baltic regimes are pursuing their nationalist policy through dictatorial methods. This policy is taking shape in their countries under the cover of the West, with its prompting and inspiration. The Baltic region had every opportunity to become a territory of common interests, language and multiculturalism, a venue for dialogue between civilisations, of everything that the Western community has declared. What has it turned into instead? It has become a caricature of itself. These countries have the institution of non-citizenship, they prosecute all those whom these countries call non-titular nations, they practice segregation of all types, and they pressure children by introducing the standards you mentioned into their legislation – you name it. Why are they doing all this? What has such a policy brought to these countries? Has this policy turned them into large industrial centres? No. Maybe they have finally explored outer space having won what they call freedom? No. Are they developing sciences or at least some of them? No. They have no industry, no science and no outer space. Maybe they are focusing on increasing the birthrate? Could this be the case? Maybe, they have given up everything and are focused on procreation, but this is not the case, either. Look at their demographic figures – they are much worse than those they had during the Soviet years.
These countries are completely dependent on Western subsidies. They are completely dependent politically and they are subordinated to the NATO-centric system. What is behind this? What was the purpose of this? Such things happen in reality when some countries depart from supreme democratic principles to overcome misery, encourage economic development and make a technological leap. They need to consolidate and centralise their efforts to fulfil some important goals and reach new frontiers. But this has thrown them back. Unfortunately or not, but this always happens. We have talked about this more than once.
Has internal consolidation taken place there? What is there to discuss? You understand perfectly well how split their society is inside.
Question: There are people that do not support this policy. They are in the majority.
Maria Zakharova: Of course. They are making it worse for themselves. These are their countries. I think a synthesis has taken place there. On the one hand, in their bid to shatter the Soviet Union, Western forces relied on the “leftovers” from World War II and the Great Patriotic War. These “leftovers” were the collaborationists whom these countries promoted. Later, many of them became “a new political elite.”
On the other hand, this “elite” with these “ideas” began to dictate its own rules because they could not live by any other rules. I think a bad synthesis occurred here. This has been disastrous for the Baltic regimes themselves.
Maria Zakharova: You said that some people in Russia believe this. I would say that this is believed not only in Russia. I have heard international leaders say that such situations never happen without Western involvement, the involvement of Western countries or the collective West. Even President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic spoke about this. So, not only people in Russia think so.
Law enforcement and other concerned agencies must give answers to all these questions.
As for Russia’s response, we have always responded with a package of measures, including our historical memory, a domestic antidote that is effective even against a large-scale threat (it is for the investigative authorities to determine the scale). Of course, all of us were worried. The situation has hit us right in the heart. But we have overcome. On June 24, during the active phase of the situation, President Putin said that we would overcome any hardships and become even stronger. This is true. We have overcome them, thankfully. We did it together. We have seen that we can overcome anything, including domestic chancers, for lack of a better word, and any other external “desire” to play such games. We have overcome, and we have become even more united.
We were reading what public opinion leaders, government officials, politicians, doctors, teachers, service people, entrepreneurs, workers of culture and scientists had to say, and all of them said the same thing. Nobody phoned them with a request to say this or to make videos. All of them did it because they were on the same page. That’s why they all said the same thing, although with a few different details, depending on the amount of information they had or the regions they were in. But essentially, they were on the same page. Isn’t this our response? Isn’t this what you meant when you asked about our reaction to such Western actions? I think it is. We have overcome, and we have become stronger, as President Putin has said.
Maria Zakharova: First of all, I don’t agree with you. I may have said yes in the heat of the debate and elaborated on the subject too readily. But it should be said, for justice’ sake, that our experts have been talking for years about the importance of creating a sovereign internet, to be used in conditions that do not necessarily stipulate independence but as an emergency. We have been told and assured that we have this capacity and that it is operational. The relevant services and agencies assured us. We can only trust their word.
Second, a great deal has been done over the past few years to reinforce our information sovereignty, like the development of our media, the support they receive from the state, their proliferation in the international information environment, and the establishment of fundamentally new information platforms. There is a lot of this around. Few people appreciate it. People love to criticise, and they hardly ever express appreciation. We should appreciate this. We have our own social media, which are more than just good. Take VKontakte, which is becoming popular throughout the world. Name one large country that has its own social media. We have them. This is extremely important. We have more than one social network. It’s true that we are lagging behind with video hosting. But we have improved the system to a level where it has become usable, and they promise us to continue to improve it.
Overall, I agree with how you formulated the question. A panel discussion on digital sovereignty addressed this subject at the SPIEF 2023. It was organised by the Foreign Ministry of Russia.
Maria Zakharova: Any form of recreation for Russian-speaking children in the EU countries, contributing to the promotion of the Russian language, raising awareness of our national culture, literature, fine arts and theatre, can only be welcomed. The traditional children's film camp held in Slovakia is a good example of excellent focused work with children and parents in Europe.
As for our country, in July and August, the well-known Artek International Children's Centre (Republic of Crimea, Russian Federation) will hold a shift involving children from around the world who won the People of Artek international contest. In total, 225 high school students from 14 countries took part in it. The winners, only 100 teenagers, received their tickets to Artek. Among the participants of the international shift are children from Abkhazia, Armenia, Belarus, Egypt, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Syria, Uzbekistan, and South Ossetia. I envy them. I visited the renovated Artek in 2015. Now there are even more opportunities. It is an unforgettable experience, a unique opportunity for recreation, friendship and development. Of course, it is a pity that children from the EU are deprived of such an opportunity due to aggressive and dictatorial policies. But that is not because of us. We are ready and always say “welcome.” They are deprived because of the regimes in those countries.
It should be noted that one of the main areas of our work with compatriots abroad is the support and promotion of the Russian language, the preservation of the historical truth, and spiritual education. All this reinforces the continuity of generations, becomes a cornerstone in raising children in the families of compatriots in the spirit of Russian traditional values, and helps our fellow citizens to protect their children from the spiritual and moral degradation that is growing in a number of Western countries. Not just degradation, but the dominance of perversions. And the criminal legalisation of perversions as well. Various government agencies and Russian regions are making consolidated efforts along these tracks.
Russian embassies and consulates general, as well as representatives of Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) respond to the initiatives and requests of diaspora activists and support various events for children, including their participation in folk celebrations, children's art exhibitions and concerts.
Rossotrudnichestvo implements the Hello, Russia! programme, which is amazing in its essence and designed for children of our compatriots, to arrange trips to historical places in our country. A New Year party with Rossotrudnichestvo is interesting every time. Such really great opportunities. A number of fascinating activities for children of compatriots are also carried out, for example, through the government of Moscow and other constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
No matter how much they scheme against us, we continue to move forward.
Maria Zakharova: It is important for Russia that the peace treaty should be durable and stable. There were numerous instances in history, including recent history, where a large number of ad hoc agreements were signed for the sake of appearances, for the protocol. Later they were never implemented.
Even with regard to Armenia, unfortunately, agreements failed to be implemented for various reasons, despite huge mediating efforts. Therefore, the treaty in question must be durable and stable. It should ensure a balance of interests between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This can be achieved based on a consistent implementation of the roadmap of the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation process, which consists of a number of 2020-2022 trilateral agreements (1,2,3,4) between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. If anything is needed additionally (life does not stand still and the situation is constantly changing), we can think about supporting this process based on UN decisions. But this requires the consent of both Yerevan and Baku.
As for the Western mediating efforts, they are being discussed at length today, but for some reason as an alternative to the Russian mediation. One has the impression that the Western countries resent and compete with Russia in order to reformat and take over the entire agenda. One feels that the West has no interest in Armenia and Azerbaijan, let alone in their peaceful coexistence. The most important thing for them is to do it contrary to Moscow, go down in history, and, if possible, create levers of influence. But if they want to be true mediators, they should stop thinking about their zero-sum games and give up any thoughts inspired by these criteria.
The West’s attempts to “bring peace” to the South Caucasus can only be viable if they are not directed against Russia and do not compete with our efforts. In my opinion, this is obvious.
Maria Zakharova: Apart from our appeals on the ground, there are Russian peacekeepers and border guards, who proved in practice for such a long time that peace is possible. I already commented on this today. This is what we are counting on. Besides, there are Russian experts at work, who are in constant contact with both Baku and Yerevan.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Видео
-
Фото
-
Скачать файл
en.vtt
